Racism is simply evolution. Every species changes and diverges in different directions. There is nothing wrong or evil about that. It is just the way things change.And every group has to find some way to fit into their niche and to do so means it changes to fit its niche.
16.9.20
Talking with God as one talks with a good friend- Hitbodadut
Talking with God as one talks with a good friend is not mentioned much in the LeM of Rav Nahman. The first place is vol. 2. And even there not anything more than saying it is a great thing.
Then at the very end it is brought up as the main thing to be doing all the time.
You can say that it simply was not known to Rav Nahman how important it is until the end of his life.
And in fact that seems clear from the Conversations of Rav Nahman.
The emphasis comes from a very short two paragraphs in LeM vol II section 96 that the greatest Avodat Hashem ("service towards God") is to do hitbodadut. "And since most people are not able to do this much, at least it is necessary to command them to do it at least an hour a day. But for one who really wants to serve God, it is the best thing to spend the whole day talking with God as one talks with a friend."
But I have had mixed feeling about this. At first, when I started taking the ideas of Rav Nahman more seriously I went in for the Hitbodadut thing also. So instead of learning Torah I would go out into the fields and forest around Safed to spend the whole day "doing Hitbodadut."
Then I noticed that in Breslov, that is people that were consciously following the path of Rav Nahman, there seemed to be a need to be spending more time on learning Torah. And on the other hand I noticed that "learning Torah" also did not seem to bring people to a higher moral and spiritual level.
It was hard to put it all together. Another thing that made it hard to figure out was that in fact the beginning of this period in Safed when I was concentrating on Hitbodadut, I felt a tremendous surge of energy, what then I would refer to as אור אין סוף ("the infinite light of God"). So after all is said and done, I have to agree that the Hitbodadut thing is just as important and even more so that Rav Nahman said it is.
So it is the best thing to have a balance between Hitbodadut and learning Torah.
At any rate, in Torah thought, Learning Torah is what one must do if he can. Taking away any time from learning Torah is forbidden except for doing a commandment that can not be done by anyone else.
In fact I sometimes would hear the old Yidish expression: "Abi Nisht zu learning" [anything but learning]. That is one ought to sit and learn Torah and trust in God for parnasah. But if parnasah doesnot come, then one ought to work. But the idea is that learning Torah iswhat one ought to spend his tome and energy on.
[However in my case I have an expanded idea and a contracted idea of what learning Torah means: I.e. it includes Mathematics and Physics as per the Rishonim like the Inb Pakuda and Rambam. But also a contracted idea because the Oral Law mean the actual books handed down to us by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara. Everything after that is not, "The Oral Torah."
15.9.20
If a Israeli marries, and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Ketuboth page 9 side B
A priest [Kohen from the male descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses] has more restrictions on who he can marry than a regular Israeli. As you can see in the verses in Leviticus the section of "Emor" "Speak to the priests", he can not marry a "Zona" which is any woman who has had sex with someone that was forbidden to her (by a prohibition from the Torah.). It matters not if it was rape or not.
This is different than a Israeli. If his wife was raped, then she is still permitted to him. But if it was with her agreement, then she is forbidden to her husband from then on.
This is a bit of an introduction. Next between betrothal and marriage there used to be a long time period. But betrothal was done in such a way that she became a married woman. [That is called Kidushin.]
So if a Israeli marries, [that is did kidushin betrothal and much later does nisuin that is the actual bringing her into his home] and finds his wife is not a virgin, she is still permitted to him because of doubt of a doubt. ספק ספקא. Maybe the sex was before she got married [betrothal] . And even if it was after, maybe it was rape. So because a doubt of a doubt ספק ספקא is permitted, she is permitted to her husband. [The rule is in a case of a doubt about a prohibition of the Torah, the law is to forbid. But if the case is a doubt of a doubt, the law is to permit. ]
The Shita Mekubetzet asks why is this not a case of טומאה ברשות היחיד uncleanliness in a private domain-which we learn from "sota" [a married woman who has strayed] is forbidden? He answers that is when there is a prior status that there can at least begin a doubt. [Like in the case of Sota when there are reasons to believe she strayed. Here there is nothing like that.
Another answer that Rav Shach gives is this is not really a case of טומאה uncleanliness. but of prohibition. Only if we already know that she is forbidden, then it becomes a case of טומאה uncleanliness, but here we do not know in the first place if she is forbidden.
14.9.20
Orchestra and piano from around 1994]
Some people are inherently ambiguous. It is like Kant noticed about some areas in which Reason can not enter and if it tries it ends up with self contradictions "antinomies". So there are people like that..For Example General McClellan. The general that defeated Robert E Lee at Antietam you would imagine there could not possibly anything ambiguous about. The person that defeated one of the smartest and best generals in history has to be clearly a winner. But no. Right after that battle--immediately he was fired by President Lincoln. There are so many sides to this issue that the best of the historians can do is treat different sides of him. Never getting one consistent picture.
Other people are clear. They stand for one thing and pursue that consistently. [Like Winston Churchill.]
A confession--I am more like the first type. The only reason I tend to be consistent in my views is that that is something I learned in Musar books. [Starting from the Chovot Levavot (Obligations of the Hearts). But I also saw that in Orchot Tzadikim.]
13.9.20
slander even refers to truth.
Actually slander even refers to truth. There are times that one must say negative things but that is to warn someone. Otherwise even true fact are slander. [There are a few verses that refer to this subject. from different angles. One thing is "Rekilut" saying true things [even positive things] that can bring hatred between one person and another. [Like praising General Grant in front of General Lee.] Another thing is "Lashon Hara" which is saying negative things--even if true unless to warn someone.
[So why is true lashon hara forbidden? To R. Yona of Grondi [author of Shaarai Teshuva] is because of collateral damage. That is: the person might be subject to punishment that otherwise he would not get according to the Law of Moses. An example from the Gemara itself is testifying alone in a court of law. Since he is alone his testimony can not be accepted and so it is lashon hara. Some Rishonim disagree and hold that true lashon hara is forbidden in and of itself. Only in specific cases of the need to warn others is it permitted
[It is somewhat of a shock to me to see that most people do not even know that lashon hara is forbidden.
People that think Marxism was meant to bring prosperity and happiness to people have never read the poetry of Marx. But the actual way the Communists Manifesto is stated it sounds as if it is meant for happiness. Marx openly acknowledges the tremendous power of capitalism to create an abundance of good. But he also claims that that is just one last stage before communism in which the middle man the owner of the factory will be eliminated and the workers will have the full share of their labor. To him the factory owner is extracting excess value from the workers. [Based on the labor Theory of Value that the value something has is a result of how much labor went into making it. But that is simply not the case. The value something has is how much you want it. Air has lots of value to me even though no one put any effort into making it.]
That is a cleaver way of getting people to imagine that they have been victimized and the best solution is to kill the rich.
But the real intent I think is contained in the poetry of Marx -that is to destroy everything.
So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.
Without Aristotle or Saadia, or Aquinas mentioning it in those particular passages that deal with specific sins, I believe they are all fitting natural law with their larger system of things having a goal or purpose. So what would not be natural law would be what does not go towards that purpose of being human. [They explain that as being basically what we would say is attachment with God.]
So natural law is not the same thing as according to natural desire.
[I am mentioning this because it is the source of John Locke's "Natural rights" which is a different way of stating the Ten Commandments. That is Thou Shalt Not Steal is the same thing stated in a different way of the fact that people have a right to their own property.
12.9.20
peaceful protesters".
"Mostly" peaceful protesters". The Titanic was "mostly" unsinkable. How about giving a ride to the protesters on an airplane that "mostly" flies? Or a boat that "mostly" floats?
attachment with God [Devekut] is in fact a major goal of the Torah.
I think that the essence of Torah is clear from the context. If you look at the Torah itself it has a structure like a Mozart Symphony. It has the first climax [which is is sometimes repeated depending on the conductor]. The first climax of the Torah --that everything is leading up to is the Ten Commandments. [I might note that the minor climax --the Ten Commandments is in fact repeated later, but not in the same way as in a Mozart symphony. Another difference is the Torah has five movements, not four.]
Then the final climax is of course the entrance of Israel into the Land of Canaan.
Also there is fear, love and attachment with God which is the purpose of the commandments.
This is stated openly in the verses. "You should do the commandments in order to love and fear and be attached to God." (Paraphrasing) [This is stated in many verses in Deuteronomy.]
So my contention is that attachment with God [Devekut] is in fact a major goal of the Torah. The Torah itself says that the commandments themselves are meant to bring one to attachment with God.
So what do you do with many places where it is said that learning Torah is worth more than all teh other commandments put together? [The mishna from Peah that everyone says right away in the morning right after the blessing on the Torah.]
You have to say that learning Torah is the major way of coming to become attached with God but the learning it in itself is not the final goal. The goal is the attachment.
[But as Rav Nahman pointed out there can be "Ribui Or" ("too much light"). So it is hard to know clearly how to limit oneself in this regard.]
The way to understand this "devakut" I think is only through the idea of Kelley Ross [the Kant Friesian School] of non intuitive immediate knowledge. It is a type of knowledge that is not emotion, not sense perception and not reason. A kind of knowledge the type that Plato describes--.\
I am not trying to avoid the question of how to come to true Devakut. It seems that it is a combination of good midot, learning Torah and Rav Nahman's idea of speaking with God as one talks with a friend, and being in Israel.
11.9.20
The forbidden relations of Leviticus [18 and 20]
The forbidden relations of Leviticus [18 and 20] are among the most serious things in the Bible. They get up there with murder and idolatry. Together they make up the list of three things one must give up his life in order not to transgress. [I.e. in such a situation where one is given a choice]. There are plenty of other forbidden relations in Deuteronomy, but they are mere prohibitions. Not laws with the death penalty attached to them.
[There are exceptions which I ought to mention. My note above was just meant to give a general idea. Some exceptions are a menstruating woman. That is there is Leviticus, but without the death penalty. ]
[Maybe if people would learn the Bible, there would not be so much confusion about these issues.]
In spite of the fact that Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov had amazing insights into human life and Torah I would not recommend joining any Breslov group. Rather to get to understand authentic straight Torah, there is no where are great as pretty much any Litvak yeshiva based on the path of the Gra and Rav Shach. Only within the context of authentic Torah do the insights of Rav Nahman add depth and understanding. But his path does not stand alone;-- and also when it is taken alone, it tends to open the door to negative things.
10.9.20
I gained a lot by being in Uman for Rosh Hashanah with Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov in terms of learning Torah and music. But that is not to say that this is automatic that everyone ought to be there. To me it seems at this point that it is better to be in Israel. [עיקר הגלות הוא בגלל חסרון אמונה. LeM volume I section 7. The main exile is because of lack of faith.] And I ought to add that there was a period that I was trying to follow everything Rav Nahman said quite literally-- and that included coming to Israel. And in fact there was a sort of inspiration that I felt during that period which lasted seven years.
Nowadays I am not at all working on that program. Still I can see the great benefit in following the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.
9.9.20
the problem of Torah shelo Lishma (--Torah not for its own sake, but rather for the sake of power or a shiduch or money).
The problems of the religious no one seems to associate with the problem of Torah shelo Lishma (--Torah not for its own sake, but rather for the sake of power or a shiduch or money).
The Ari means to say that the Talmud is mixed with good and evil like the tree of knowledge of good and evil was. See the Introduction of the Eitz Chaim. R. Zeira came to Israel and fasted forty days in order to forget the Babylonian Talmud and to start learning the Talmud Yerushalmi.
The reason is there is an aspect of holiness and entry into holiness in Gemara. Like the Gemara says about one who has Torah but not Fear of God: "Woe to him who has the door but not the house." It is a door for holiness if learned for its own sake. But when learned or taught for money, it changes its character into something negative.
When people see the general kinds of insanity and evil in the religious world, they almost never associate the problems with Torah not for its own sake,- but rather find flaws in the Torah itself.
But to me the answer seems to lay in the intention. סם חיים למימינים בה סם מוות למשמאילים בה
The problem in the USA now is that the Marxists are trying to take it down. But it was not always that way. Before this started so suddenly, the educational system in the pseudo social studies, very much Marxist as Allan Bloom noted in The Closing of the American Mind. He was saying back 30 years ago that the universities were the problem.
I suggest simply closing the social pseudo studies departments. Once and for all. [However a lot of the studies in USA universities are great, STEM, Music, Arts. Plus the technical schools are great.]
And as for reparations for slavery, maybe people ought to pay back the trillions of welfare dollars they have collected from the Federal government since LBJ's welfare state began in the 1960's. Plus give up all the jobs they have gotten from Affirmative Action, and take tests and show competence like everyone else.
The idea that leaning Physics and Metaphysics as being even more important than learning Torah per se is an opinion that I had to depend on since "sitting and learning Torah" somehow or other was not working out for me.
Perhaps for lack of trying hard enough. Perhaps reasons that are still unknown or not understood by me. Still if I had had enough commitment I think I would have just sat and learned Torah.
Part of the reason is that while seeing the importance of Physics and Metaphysics (that many Rishonim hold), still there is the numinous aspect of Torah that apparently you do not find in these subjects where the holiness is hidden.
The word "Numinous" comes from Otto based on the the idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge. The idea is the is an perception of holiness that does not depend on reason. [See the Kant Fries school.]
7.9.20
it is important to have a good idea of what real authentic Torah is
There is a kind of continuity of groups or super-organisms {as Howard Bloom would call them}. In the recent world wars, no one from England would say they are fighting for Englishmen. No. Rather they would say they are, "Fighting for England."
Similarly you can notice a kind of continuity of the Mir Yeshiva over generations. A kind of DNA of an institution- rather that of the individuals that are a part of it. A kind of modesty, a commitment to whatever the Torah says -not to any doctrines per se, strictness about laws of money and not to speak lashon hara (slander).
But this, I think, can apply to almost all yeshivas built on the vision of the Gaon of Villna -the Gra.
Even for those of us that are not as strict in every detail that we ought to be , still it is important to have a good idea of what real, authentic Torah is-- as opposed to Torah of the Sitra Acha [Dark Side] which too often poses as the real thing.
Dr Kelley Ross suggested that the reason the Left is rioting and burning American cities is the same kind of reasoning that led to the Tet Offense in the Vietnam War. That is, the Left feels if they can bring enough violence and chaos to American cities then people will vote for them just in order to stop the violence.
But my question is if this can work in the USA in the same way that it worked in Vietnam? After all Americans might resent being used in that kind of way. They might vote for President Trump just to show they are not afraid of the riots. This has happened before. People have sometimes attacked the USA thinking people would just give up. But after being attacked that American DNA was awakened that holds freedom dear.
[The Tet Offensive was an attack on South Vietnam that was meant to weaken support of American troops and the S. Vietnam government. And this strategy worked in the USA also. Immediately after the rioting stated, support for President Trump went down to ziltch. But the question is that now American might be getting tired of the violence and want to return to stability. So support for Trump has risen again. That is in the hope that he can bring stability and prosperity.]
6.9.20
Ketuboth page 9. A priest comes to court and says he found his newly wed wife was not a virgin. She is not saying anything. She is forbidden to him because of a doubt when were the relations before or after kidushin? Since there is only one doubt she is forbidden. Tosphot says there are two hazakot [prior state] here. Hezkat she is OK and hezkat of the body. That is she is assumed to have stayed a virgin until you know otherwise. That puts the act of sex later. R Akiva Eigger says hezkat hashta [the state of things now] does not help her here because you would need it to join with hezkat OK and it can not because it says something different than hezkat OK. Hezkat OK says there was no sex. Hezkat hashta says you push the act of sex back in time as far as possible and that means the sex was before kidushin.
I have two questions here. One is Hezzkat OK can say either the sex was before kidushin or there was no sex. That that has an intersection with hezkat hashata which says the sex was before kidushin. The other question is no one has even brought up the possibility she did not have sex. So all that hezkat OK says is that the sex was before kidushin. And therefore both hazakot are saying the exact same thing.
Rav Shach asks that Shmuel holds there is no state of now that pushes things back in time (Hezkat Hashta) and Rav who does hold from it holds hazakot [status plural] do not need to join. He answers that is only to tell us a state of being. But in a case like in Nida page 2 where an event happened to change the status, there you need the two hazakot to join.
[There is a time period between betrothal [kidushin] and the marriage. But she is a married woman after the betrothal. [In ancient times, the betrothal was done in the way that makes it actually marriage. Nowadays it is just a promise to marry so it is not the same thing.]] So if she had sex after, then she is forbidden to her husband who is a priest even if it was rape. That not the case of a Israeli, only a priest. This is clear in the verses in the Torah that a Kohen priest can not marry a "zona" that is a woman who has had sex that was forbidden].
The whole idea of
________________________________________________
כתובות page 9. A כהן comes to court and says he found his newly wed wife was not a virgin. She is not saying anything. She is forbidden to him because of a doubt when were the relations before or after קידושין? Since there is only one doubt she is forbidden. תוספות says there are two חזקות here. חזקת כשרות and חזקת הגוף. That is she is assumed to have stayed a virgin until you know otherwise. That puts the act of sex later. ר' עקיבא איגר says חזקת השתא does not help her here because you would need it to join with חזקת כשרות and it can not because it says something different than חזקת כושר. That is חזקת כשרות says there was no sex. חזקת השתא says you push the act of sex back in time as far as possible and that means the sex was before קידושין. I have two questions here. One is חזקת כשרות can say either the sex was before קידושין or there was no sex. That that has an intersection with חזקת השתא which says the sex was before קידושין. The other question is no one has even brought up the possibility she did not have sex. So all that חזקת כשרות says is that the sex was before קידושין. And therefore both hazakot are saying the exact same thing. רב שך asks that שמואל holds there is no חזקת השתא and רב who does hold from it holds חזקות do not need to join. He answers that is only to tell us a state of being. But in a case like in נידה page 2 where an event happened to change the status, there you need the two חזקות to join.
כתובות עמוד 9. כהן מגיע לבית המשפט ואומר שמצא שאשתו הטרייה לא הייתה בתולה. היא לא אומרת כלום. היא אסורה עליו בגלל ספק מתי היו היחסים לפני קידושין או אחריהם? מכיוון שיש רק ספק אחד היא אסורה. תוספות אומר שיש כאן שתי חזקות. חזקת כשרות וחזקת הגוף. משערים שהיא נשארה בתולה עד שתדע אחרת. זה מציב את מעשה המין מאוחר יותר. ר 'עקיבא איגר אומר חזקת השתא לא עוזר לה כאן כי היית צריך את זה כדי להצטרף עם חזקת כשרות וזה לא יכול כי זה אומר משהו אחר מאשר חזקת כושר. היינו חזקת כשרות אומרת שלא היה שום יחסי מין. חזקת השתא אומרת שאתה דוחף את מעשה המין לאחור בזמן ככל האפשר וזה אומר שהמין היה לפני קידושין. יש לי שתי שאלות כאן. האחת היא חזקת כשרות יכולה לומר שהמין היה לפני קידושין או שלא היה יחסי מין. זה שיש לו צומת עם חזקת השתא שאומרת שהמין היה לפני קידושין. השאלה השנייה היא שאף אחד אפילו לא העלה את האפשרות שהיא לא קיימה יחסי מין. אז כל מה שאומר חזקת כשרות הוא שהמין היה לפני קידושין. ולכן שתי החזקות אומרות את אותו הדבר בדיוק. רב שך שאל ששמואל מחזיק שאין חזקת השתא ורב שאוחז ממנו מחזיק חזקות לא צריכות להצטרף. הוא עונה שזה רק כדי לומר לנו מצב של הוויה. אבל במקרה כמו בנידה עמוד 2 שבו אירוע קרה כדי לשנות את הסטטוס, שם אתה זקוק לשני החזקות כדי להצטרף
4.9.20
Communism actually had its beginning in the French Revolution with Babeuf and it is at least indicative of where things are going in the USA. It might even be helpful to learn about the source and history of Communism before recommending it. It is like if a doctor prescribes some compound, and for the last two hundred years it has killed every person that tried it. Before recommending it to others, you might take a few minutes to see if it has ever tried before, and what the results were.
Marx did not simply copy Babeuf, but used ideas of Adam Smith and Hegel to make a more unified structure.
I was aware of Marx when I was much younger, and read the Communist Manifesto and other works by Leftists. The reason none of it impressed me was I had ingrained in me from my earliest youth the idea that no matter how rigorously, logical and scientific and ingenious a theory is, if experiment shows its predictions are wrong, then it is wrong.
The constant attempts of East Germans to get to West Germany or to West Berlin was plenty of evidence for me to show not all was well in Communist East Germany. That same story has been repeated ad infinitum: the USSR, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, all African countries--anywhere that takes a socialistic model the result is always mass murder, mass starvation, zero freedom. etc.
Rav Avraham Abulafia's approach to Jesus is important because it establishes a certain amount of legitimacy to him within the context of Torah.
I mean, people can think of lots of things, but those things are not necessarily with the context or borders of Authentic Torah. In fact, most of what passes today as authentic Torah is anything but that.
For something to be within the context of authentic Torah, it needs to be accepted by the Rishonim. Without that condition, nothing can even start.
[Rishonim means "first ones" [After Rav Hai Gaon until Rav Joseph Karo as opposed to Ahronim ["later ones"--after Rav Joseph Karo.]
3.9.20
Slander is a prohibition in the Torah. There are exceptions like when you need to warn someone about a dangerous person. But as a starting point, one needs very urgent and good reason to be able to disparage another person. [I mean the starting position is never to say something negative about another person. Then based on circumstances, there might be a need and even a requirement to say something.]
One of the secrets of success I always thought that the Mir Yeshiva in NY had was the morning session where people would learn the laws of slander after the morning prayers. So there was a great awareness of the issues involved in speaking slander.
Just for clarity:
Lashon Hara can be just saying something negative --but is worse if it is with intention to cause damage or even can cause damage. It is divided into בין אדם למקום ובין אדם לחבירו and the laws are different. For between man and God issues it is enough if the person is on that path in a constant way. Just just an accidental sin. Then one can say lashon hara and warn others. For issues between man and his fellow man, that is where you need some conditions to be able to say anything negative: for benefit, to see it oneself, rebuke, no other way to get that benefit, to be clear that what one think happened really did happen, it will not cause more damage that would come to the person if he was tried in court, that it really is clear according to the laws of the Torah.
Some examples: it would be forbidden for a woman to lie about her husband in court in order to get more money out of an alimony case. There are lot of reasons for that. One is that Lashon Hara even on true things still needs lots of conditions. All the more so lying about something is worse. And here it is with intention to cause damage.
2.9.20
the kind of wisdom that Rav Nahman says comes from the Empty Space is Philosophy.
I would assume that the kind of wisdom that Rav Nahman says comes from the Empty Space is Philosophy. I mean to say that there is something odd about philosophy in the first place that seems to retract common sense away from people, and yet does not qualify as simply a false or man made wisdom with no connection to reality. What I mean is that something like psychology is simply pseudo science and a result of its practitioners delusions and their own childhood experiences. There is nothing real or objective about psychology in the first place. But philosophy is not like that. It deal with real questions, but questions that seem to have contradictory answers and which leads into some kind of mental traps.
Psychology is insane people pretending to be doctors. But philosophy takes sane people and makes them insane.
[That is in its effect. On the other hand, it does appear that philosophy can help to limit or cancel other kinds of delusions. Particularity religious delusions. So is it possible to find some kind of balance? We see Robert Hanna in fact demolished 20th century analytic philosophy in its entirety--simply by pointing out its circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. But his suggestion of "Forward to Kant" seems difficult to accept since Kant him is open to many schools of thought, particularity Neo-Kant [Marburg], Leonard Nelson, Hegel.
The main magic of the Litvak yeshiva is based on trust in God. When Torah is learned for its own sake, and not for the sake of making a living, there is a sort of settling of the Divine presence.
But that magic disappears when the intention becomes for the sake of making money.
But ordination programs got introduced (even in the Mir yeshiva of NY itself). That seems to have been a mistake.
But not the only one. Even the idea of "kollel" itself to me seems to be a problem. I just do not think people ought to be paid for learning Torah. Religions just to be too much of a business.
Slave revenge
Slave revenge has nothing to do with bettering the living conditions of the slave as in the incident with the Nat Turner rebellion. It is simply a way of "getting back"at former masters.
This is what is going on in the USA right now. Slave Revenge. An attempt to destroy the whites. Not better the blacks.
1.9.20
The lesson to learn from the civil war is rhetoric. 20 years of rhetoric created the situation when young teenagers of both the North and South were anxious to kill the other. This same situation has existed in the USA from the 1960's until today when colleges and high schools have been overwhelmed by teachers all too ready to demonize the USA, and lionize Communism and Socialism.
And now, as back then in 1861, this can not end peacefully.
In America the basic argument between the Right and the Marxists is from tractate Ketuboth page 9. That is do you go by חזקת השתא או חזקה מעיקרא the state of things now or the state of things before. That is do you assume conditions now always existed until you reach the point where you know they did not. I.e. prosperity, freedom, etc all the markers of Western Civilization. Until you reach the point of despair and poverty when you know these conditions did not apply.
Or do you assume the state of mankind was poor and desperate short and brutal until something like the USA came along to make it different. [Even the age of Mozart does not count since it was only capitalism that made conditions of prosperity and freedom apply to everyone, not just the monarch.]
Well clearly the Gemara holds that we go by the state of things before and you push that forwards as far as possible until something you know changed it. That is the Constitution of the USA.
Certainly Marxism did not make things prosperous or make people free in any country that has ever tried it. The long lines in Russia just to get a few groceries shows that.
So we know it was capitalism that changed the original conditions of mankind.
[The basic issue in Ketuboth is that a priest marries and then comes to court and says he found his new bride not to be a virgin. [i.e. no hymen]. So she is forbidden to him. But if a Israeli comes and says the same thing she is permitted to him because it is a ספק ספקא doubt of a doubt. Maybe she had sexual relations before Kidushin. Then she is permitted. But even if she had relations after Kidushin, it might have been against her will. So she is still permitted.
Tosphot asks why not go by חזקת כשרות that every person starts out with. That is--they are Ok util you know otherwise. Tosphot answers because of חזקה מעיקרא the original state of things. That is..you assume she was a virgin until the very second you found out otherwise. That means after the Kidushin and so she is forbidden to the Koken,
So we see we go by the original state of things even when there is a present state of things against it.
[That is from Rav Akiva Eigger and Rav Shach.]
31.8.20
Philosophy seems less interesting to me nowadays because I am upset about what is going on in the USA and I do not see philosophy as ever getting issues of government correct.
For some reason Plato, Kant, Leonard Nelson, Hegel may have been great and deep thinkers, but when it comes to political issues they did not seem to have that same degree of insight or talent.
The people that got politics right the founding fathers of the USA Constitution were not philosophers and they did not base their thought on philosophy. Rather they based their ideas on England and especially the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
It is not that the issues were all that different. Rather that the philosophers got the issues wrong. Hegel saw the terrible mess of the French Revolution but his solution seems to involve too much government. Kant also was dealing with the crisis of modernity of Germany after the old structures of society were changing. But his solutions also do not seem accurate--too much world government and or too much individual.
What ever Thomas Jefferson and James Madison got right, it was not based on philosophy.
30.8.20
Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school of thought has commented on the idea that Kant must have been onto something since we see his idea in Quantum Mechanics.
The basic ideas that between two states the electron is really not doing anything. It has no classical values of position and momentum. So it really does seem very similar to Kant's Dinge An Sich. The thing in itself which Reason has no access into.
The advantage of the Litvak yeshiva is authenticity. It is not that Litvaks are very nice or that the Litvak world is so great. It is not that even all the doctrines are right.
Rather it is simply that it is the one address you can go to to find out what the Torah actually says. Not what people want it to say.
[In fact I had a pretty great experience in both of the Litvak yeshivas [Mir and Shar Yashuv] I attended, but the point I want to bring out here is that one's experience should not make any difference in evaluating the value. The fact in itself that all yeshivas based on the Gra and Rav Shach more or less apply the same principle that says basically that we simply want to learn and understand keep Torah. There is basically no alternative agendas.
29.8.20
The destroyed cities that were destroyed because by the Emancipation Proclamation. If Lincoln had learned Torah, and especially the books of Ethics [Musar], then the whole issue would have been resolved without war.
The destroyed cities ruined by the Emancipation Proclamation are proof the South was right.
Besides that I just want to add for the sake of information, there is slavery in Torah. And Jesus also said that every word of Torah is true and will never be nullified right in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount.
So to say that slavery is evil, one has to repudiate a both the Torah and Jesus.
Portland has shown once and for all that the South was right. The Proclamation of Emancipation was a ticking time bomb and now it has come time to explode.
I might add that the tzars also discovered this truth with freeing the serfs. [It did not take long for them to destroy the Russian Empire after that. ]
Legally anyway, the slaves were never freed because you would need the Southern States to agree to a Constitutional amendment by their own free will.
From a Torah point of view also there are only a few ways that a slave can be freed. But I am not sure that is applicable here since I think a government proclamation can free slaves but only if the proclamation is legally valid. Lincoln's was not.
So today what is possible? I suggest Rav Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar (Ethics). This is in order to understand the basic principles of Torah. If Lincoln had learned Torah and especially the books of Ethics [Musar] then the whole issue would have been resolved without war.
28.8.20
learning Torah with energy
I have thought for a long time that Rav Israel Abuchatzeira found a sort of "grace" with God in so far as whenever people came to him to get a blessing, it always [or most always] worked. I do not think he always knew how. He would have bottles of water that people would take home, and usually be saved from whatever problem they were facing. But if he knew how? I doubt it. [He was not all knowing as some people suggest.]
To me this seems to tie in with the very first lesson in Rav Nahman's LeM Vol I. Chapter 1. That when a person has grace with God his prayers are answered and even his requests --what he asks a favor from people-those are answered too. So how does one gain "grace". In that lesson Rav Nahman says is is by learning Torah with energy.
This brings the question is there anyone of the Bava Sali family around nowadays that is similar or worthwhile going to for a blessing? Probably. I would venture to say Shimon Buso, [a son of a daughter of Bava Sali] who lives in Jerusalem but learns in Netivot.
[But I ought to add that I think that any descendant of Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira is worth going to to get advice and a blessing.]
That particular lesson of Rav Nahman says that learning Torah with energy bring together reason with faith. [The ח and נ ] but in the beginning of that section Rav Nahman says learning Torah combines the Nun and the Cheit. In the he says to merit to reason in the first place one needs to learn Torah with energy.
There is some cultist aspect to the religious world. This is even though as far as possible to tell, all they are doing is trying to follow Torah. Still there is a definite aspect of the Sitra Achra [Dark Side] that has taken hold of the religious world. It is almost as if there is a "for the sake of money" or other aspects there. While that is true, still it does not explain the issue. At any rate , in spite of the frum (religious world) making a song and dance of how they alone keep Torah (and so everyone ought to give them money), still there is some reason to avoid them if you value your family and life. For there is a aspect of the Dark Side that has taken hold of the religious world.
The problem is obviously that Torah is positive value and the most positive value. So זה לעומת זה עשה האלהים [the good side and evil side are parallel.] for every positive value there is a whole circle of negative value surrounding it. So what is going on is that the Dark Side is buried deep inside the religious world.
27.8.20
Kyle Rittenhouse. The second video. [That is the person accused of murder.]
Kyle Rittenhouse. I want to go over the second video. The first thing that happens is is running away and then he is hit on the head with a skateboard. He does not shoot back. Then he is knocked on the ground and kicked in the head. [You can not see who hit him the second time that caused him to fall. That is blocked from view.] Then someone tries to jump on top of him, and that is when the first shot happens. Then again someone attacks him, and he shoots again. Then a person with a pistol [that is hard to see in the video] has turned around and almost has his pistol ready to shoot Rittenhouse; and that is when Rittenhouse gets off the third shot. Literally an instant before he is almost killed.
It is hard to see this as anything but self defense in a dire emergency.
The sages in the Gemara say: הקם להרגך, השכם ותהרוג אותו. "If one is coming to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill him."
He should be awarded a a medal for helping to protect his community.
So why arrest him? It is not as if there is no one out there rioting. So the one person that does the right thing--that is whom they arrest?
The first video is hard to see. But the basic train of events is this. Rittenhouse is running away. The person with the red around his head attacks Rittenhouse, and then throws something at him, and then that is when you hear the shoot. Also self defense. In all these cases, Rittenhouse was the one running from trouble. But when trouble came to get him, he turned around and protected himself.
The South wanted freedom. I can not see that the states had no right to secede. It is like a marriage. If one partner wants out, would you say the other has a right to use force to coerce him or her to stay? Of course not. So why would you say the North could use force on the South to make them stay? What is the difference?
And nowadays there is evidence that the South was right. E.g. Portland, Detroit, Chicago, Newark, etc.
26.8.20
What is going on in the USA is not hard to understand. When the human race was young and let's say you are in a village where the last horse has been eaten. But the next village over you can smell the roast beef they are having every night. And when you go to trade, you see their pretty girls. So someone comes up with a brilliant idea. Lets go over there, kill all the men and take the women and children and Take Their Stuff. TTS.
That is what is going on in the USA. It is not-that young teenagers have been convinced about Communism by deep study. It is rather a way to ease one's conscience about the basic element of human DNA: Let's take their stuff.
The area of review in the thought of Rav Nahman of Uman and Breslov is ambiguous. We know exactly how he held one ought to learn as in saying the words and going on. But that is the "Bekiut" aspect of learning. The fast learning. But what about "Iyun". He clearly held from its importance as you can see in the LeM volume I chapter 78.
One suggestion I have and I have tried a few times myself is that once you get to the end of the book [whether Gemara or midrash or the natural sciences] to go back page by page from the end towards the beginning. This has the advantage that you are doing review before you have had a chance to start forgetting. And forgetting is almost inevitable if you go right back to the beginning once you have gotten to the end. But in this way of review page by page from the end towards the start --that way you are doing review with a short time from when you first learned the material.
25.8.20
We need to rethink the Civil War.
How is it possible to know the South the right? There is some evidence. E.g., Baltimore, Portland, Newark, Detroit. etc. That is you see the results or Emancipation and then you have evidence that it was not right.
DO HOME OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES?
I cannot see the question. In the Torah there is a law הבא המחתרת in Exodus. That is the verse about one who breaks into into the home of someone else -- the owner has a right to shoot them. Self defense does not need Miranda warnings.
So when BLM come into a neighborhood, we know they are not there to sit down and have a chat.
There is a "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud who is criticized.
The Rosh [Asher] wrote that that does not refer to Jesus. [The Rosh was a Rishon]. The "Yeshu" mentioned in the Talmud was a disciple of one of the middle "zuggot' pairs mention in Pirkei Avot. [Yehoshua ben Perachia] So that is right in the middle of the second Temple. That is about 150 years before Jesus. Yeshu was not an uncommon name. [Where the Rosh wrote this? I seem to recall seeing it at the end of Gitten but maybe it was somewhere else.]
I mean to say the Talmud says openly exactly who it is referring to--that is the disciple of Yehushua ben Perachia. That means it can not be referring to the Yeshua of the NT.
I might just add the point that "Hagada" even in the Talmud itself is not binding. The idea of the Talmud is to get to the laws of Torah, not stories. That is not to say that the stories are not interesting. Interesting yes but fundamental and binding? No. As the Ramban and other Rishonim already made this point long ago.
I know people think Torah is all about interesting stories. But in fact it is not. It is about laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)